What should we do with politicians that lie?

Again we have this same topic. Should it be illegal for a politician to lie? What should the punishment be?

IE when rMoney states that his medical plan will cover pre-existing conditions during the debate, but it in fact will not cover them, should he be arrested?

When rMoney states that he won't lower taxes on the rich, but his plan clearly does this, should he be disqualified from the election?

If a government employee tells you something, and you make life decisions based upon that information, but the government employee is lying to you and does the exact opposite, do you have a path for recourse?

bedub1 wrote:When rMoney states that he won't lower taxes on the rich, but his plan clearly does this, should he be disqualified from the election?

He clearly said in the debate that he wouldn't lower the share of taxes paid by the riches, which means the overall percentage of taxes paid by the rich. That is achieved by closing deductions and/or capping them.

By the way, why do you only name Romney in your post as a liar? What about the lies Obama has told about Libya, just to name one?

Night Strike wrote:By the way, why do you only name Romney in your post as a liar? What about the lies Obama has told about Libya, just to name one?

Because I didn't just read an article about Obama lying. I read one about rMoney lying. Specifically, how it's incredibly difficult to debate somebody when you don't know what his position is. Given it changes on a daily basis, and changes based upon who he's talking to. The reason he "won" the debate is cause he lied his ass off to make himself appeal to lots of people. He backtracked on everything he said during his campaign, and his position has now swung 180 degrees to the other side.

I know that if he is elected, it will swing right back to the other side.

Night Strike wrote:By the way, why do you only name Romney in your post as a liar? What about the lies Obama has told about Libya, just to name one?

Because I didn't just read an article about Obama lying. I read one about rMoney lying. Specifically, how it's incredibly difficult to debate somebody when you don't know what his position is. Given it changes on a daily basis, and changes based upon who he's talking to. The reason he "won" the debate is cause he lied his ass off to make himself appeal to lots of people. He backtracked on everything he said during his campaign, and his position has now swung 180 degrees to the other side.

I know that if he is elected, it will swing right back to the other side.

If Romney was lying and it was "so" obvious, why didn't Obama call him out on it? And we know Obama's only line of attack on Romney in the debate was a lie when he claimed Romney would cut taxes by $5 trillion. Even one of his top campaign officials stated that today.

Night Strike wrote:If Romney was lying and it was "so" obvious, why didn't Obama call him out on it? And we know Obama's only line of attack on Romney in the debate was a lie when he claimed Romney would cut taxes by $5 trillion. Even one of his top campaign officials stated that today.

That one is hilarious, and yet, he and other sycophantic obamaphiles are still spouting this lie.

Just on the face of it, 5 trillion should throw alarms bells and the lie-o-meter in people's heads off.

I was talking about this with someone else on another forum, having a good laugh about it. I think I'll copy it here-

Something like this, said by obama-"Romney wants to give rich people a 5 trillion dollar tax break."

Really?

Five.....trillion?

Seriously, Obama said "trillion". Three times he said it during the debate.

Five trillion.

What? Over a 1000 years?

Is Obama insane?

Five....fucking....trillion.

Now, the number, "trillion", does not really exist. The human mind cannot comprehend a "trillion" of something.You can't imagine a trillion miles. A trillion apples. A trillion stars. The only thing the human mind, to make out of what a "trillion" of anything is, is that a trillion of anything is a whooooollllllllleeeeeee lot of that something. And that's just a trillion, let alone five trillion.

One trillion dollars, in $100 bills, stacked end for end, would reach the moon and back, a couple of times I'd bet.

Look at this,

See the little guy there in the bottom left corner wearing the red shirt? That's a guy standing next to a trillion dollars in $100 bills, if that many bills even existed to be stack on pallets like that.

LMAO, five trillion. That's how I know for a fact that Obama is full of crap, a five trillion dollar tax break, yeah right. That's absurd to have even been stated out loud.

Now, a person who has no concept of what a trillion dollars is (pretty much everyone), many will not even think twice about that comment, except maybe "That dirty bastard Romney!"The Obamaphiles and zombies won't even take a moment to think "Hey, five trillion dollars? Really? I dunno man....that doesn't sound right at all..."

And it's not!

Even if Romney wanted to give five trillion in tax breaks, it can't be done.

Obama must think everyone is completely stupid, or he is completely stupid, or both.

I'm thinking...."Both".

What do you think?

Oh, and in case you missed it, in that picture of what a trillion dollars in $100 bills would look like, did you notice that all the pallets are double stacked?Heh, heh.

Something like this, said by obama-"Romney wants to give rich people a 5 trillion dollar tax break."

Really?

Five.....trillion?

Seriously, Obama said "trillion". Three times he said it during the debate.

Five trillion.

What? Over a 1000 years?

Is Obama insane?

Five....fucking....trillion.

Now, the number, "trillion", does not really exist. The human mind cannot comprehend a "trillion" of something.You can't imagine a trillion miles. A trillion apples. A trillion stars. The only thing the human mind, to make out of what a "trillion" of anything is, is that a trillion of anything is a whooooollllllllleeeeeee lot of that something. And that's just a trillion, let alone five trillion.

One trillion dollars, in $100 bills, stacked end for end, would reach the moon and back, a couple of times I'd bet.

Look at this,

See the little guy there in the bottom left corner wearing the red shirt? That's a guy standing next to a trillion dollars in $100 bills, if that many bills even existed to be stack on pallets like that.

LMAO, five trillion. That's how I know for a fact that Obama is full of crap, a five trillion dollar tax break, yeah right. That's absurd to have even been stated out loud.

Now, a person who has no concept of what a trillion dollars is (pretty much everyone), many will not even think twice about that comment, except maybe "That dirty bastard Romney!"The Obamaphiles and zombies won't even take a moment to think "Hey, five trillion dollars? Really? I dunno man....that doesn't sound right at all..."

And it's not!

Even if Romney wanted to give five trillion in tax breaks, it can't be done.

Obama must think everyone is completely stupid, or he is completely stupid, or both.

I'm thinking...."Both".

What do you think?

Oh, and in case you missed it, in that picture of what a trillion dollars in $100 bills would look like, did you notice that all the pallets are double stacked?Heh, heh.

Are you serious? You believe Obama wasn't lying when he said Romney wants to give rich people a $5 trillion tax break?

You do know that is a complete lie, right? That the number of five trillion dollars is all BS. Please don't tell me you believe that lie Obama told and is still telling. Five trillion dollar tax break, it's absurd to even say that out loud. Obama is counting on people to not take a moment and consider exactly what five trillion dollars really is. I'm boggled to how he even came to pick that particularly large number to state. I guess the adage, "the bigger the lie the more likely people will believe it" comes into play, maybe, I dunno.

But if you wanna believe that lie, then have at it. Just keep thinking it's "the other guy" who lies and not "your guy". You'll be well served thinking like that......

Are you serious? You believe Obama wasn't lying when he said Romney wants to give rich people a $5 trillion tax break?

You do know that is a complete lie, right? That the number of five trillion dollars is all BS. Please don't tell me you believe that lie Obama told and is still telling. Five trillion dollar tax break, it's absurd to even say that out loud. Obama is counting on people to not take a moment and consider exactly what five trillion dollars really is. I'm boggled to how he even came to pick that particularly large number to state. I guess the adage, "the bigger the lie the more likely people will believe it" comes into play, maybe, I dunno.

But if you wanna believe that lie, then have at it. Just keep thinking it's "the other guy" who lies and not "your guy". You'll be well served thinking like that......

It is true that a central facet of Mitt Romney’s economic plan is a 20 percent across-the-board reduction in marginal tax rates, plus elimination of the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax (AMT). Do the math on how much money the federal government would forgo as a result of this, and it’s about $456 billion a year. Over 10 years, that rounds up to $5 trillion. That's the calculus behind the "$5 trillion tax cut" figure that Obama cites.

EDIT: I think it's funny that the reason you seem to dismiss it is because you can't fathom how much 5 trillion dollars is. Just because you can't wrap your brain around the concept of infinity, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Basically his cuts will amount to 4.8 trillion over 10 years. He says his cuts will be revenue neutral, but we know that is a lie. We know he is telling the truth about cutting taxes for the rich, because that's in line with his overall philosophy. He honestly thinks that his 14% tax rate is too high, and the middle class's 25-35% tax rate is too low, and he needs to lower taxes on the rich and raise taxes on the middle class/poor.

How can tax cuts be "revenue neutral" when every single tax IS revenue.

Besides, Obama's number assumes exactly zero deductions will be cut/capped and that revenues to the government will not possibly increase due to higher productivity in the private sector due to a less burdensome tax policy.

By the way, Obama thinks the 35% tax on the middle class is too low and wants it raised to 40%.

bedub1 wrote:Again we have this same topic. Should it be illegal for a politician to lie? What should the punishment be?

IE when rMoney states that his medical plan will cover pre-existing conditions during the debate, but it in fact will not cover them, should he be arrested?

When rMoney states that he won't lower taxes on the rich, but his plan clearly does this, should he be disqualified from the election?

If a government employee tells you something, and you make life decisions based upon that information, but the government employee is lying to you and does the exact opposite, do you have a path for recourse?

I don't think you CAN make it illegal, because the proof required for conviction would, in most cases, be exceptionally difficult to come by.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

Politicians are in a tough spot from day 1. The problem with them lying that disgusts me the most is that the people are basically demanding the lies to be told to them.

People: "What are you gonna do about the economy? You gotta get in there and fix it! My husband is unemployed, my mother that just moved in with me has stage 3 lung cancer, I promised my oldest son if he got good grades I would do whatever it took to pay for his tuition, but now it's unaffordable and there aren't any jobs to be had anyways. Please Mr. Politician! You have to do something! My Mother is dying!!!!!"

It's not very easy for a politician or a candidate to say "Mam, I will do whatever I can, but you have to realize I am not running to be a dictator, to control the economy, to interfere in the free market, to save everyone's mother from certain death. My aim is to do whatever I can to address the issues that have made tuition rise so much that it is now unaffordable. I will do what I can to get government out of healthcare so that it will be affordable, like it used to be before the government dominated healthcare. I will do whatever I can to encourage an economic environment where small businesses owners can hire one more employee, rather than lay one employee off just so they can keep the heatlhcare for the rest of the employees."

The voter hears the other candidate speak and notices the way they look into the their eyes when they make the promise "elect me, and I will fix everything! Your mom won't die, because I will make sure she gets treatment and gets cured. I will slash tuition costs. I will create 5 million new green jobs in 4 years, so tell your son to study up on renewable energy, and who knows, maybe he will be the next Bill Gates. The only thing I can tell you for sure is that if you vote for my opponent, your mother will die, the college your son wants to go to will be closed, and there won't even be a safety net available for people like your son who cannot make it in the real world through no fault of their own"

Guess who wins? the liar. Guess who helps them win? The people who had the lies told right to their faces. Sometimes the BS gets so thick, a politician can serve a glass of sand to their constituency, make them believe it is a glass of water, and also convince them that they and everyone they know are dying of thirst, and some people can be so engulfed with so much on the line and so worked into a frenzy, they will drink the sand.

The politicians lie so much because the people let them get away with it. The politicians know they got away with it, so they tell the exact same promises the next time around, because they know it will work, because there are enough people now who don't have a clue how anything works. all they know is how to pull the lever on the vending machine where the most candy comes out, and they bitch if they have to use their own quarter to do it.

Overall, I think this is a symptom of people looking to the government to solve problems without even trying to look to themselves or others, and it has become a habit. It does not help that the education system, also run by the government, trains students to do this for the rest of their lives. And it's working, because with less and less opportunity available today (spent on yesterdays debt), fewer and fewer people break through into "the real world" to be able to see the lies in the first place.

bedub wrote:Basically his cuts will amount to 4.8 trillion over 10 years. He says his cuts will be revenue neutral, but we know that is a lie.

bedub's article wrote:and it’s about $456 billion a year.

You think that the government who takes in around $2.2 trillion in tax revenue (and spends $3.3 trillion LOL) is going to go from $2.2T down to $1.75T? You are out of your mind.

bedub wrote:He honestly thinks that his 14% tax rate is too high

You are aware that the top tax bracket is 35% (currently), right? Not 14%. You can't be talking about capital gains taxes, because those are at 15-28% (depending on the type) and are not income taxes. Then you say-

bedub wrote:he middle class's 25-35% tax rate is too low

and who are you talking about here? Let's ignore for a moment as well that you quote in some article the following-

The 35%, of course, is the top rate. Which you are calling the middle class. The top rate, which rich people have to pay on income.

Here are the current marginal rates in the US-10% for $0-$870015% for $8701-$35,35025% for $35,351-$85,65028% for $85,651-$178,65033% for $178,651-$388,35035% for $388,351+

So where is the 14% rate bracket? I don't see it anywhere on there. Of course, you ignore your own quoted article that claims Romney is calling for a 20% ACROSS THE BOARD tax cut for marginal tax rates. You know, the reason it's supposedly true that Romney wants a $5 trillion tax cut "for the rich". Which is true of your claims, because they can't both be true. Is it that Romney wants to cut the marginal rate 20% across the board or that he wants to raise the 25%-35% marginal tax rate?

Now, since you say that Romney is indeed trying to get a $5 trillion tax cut (LMAO), then that must mean that you really mean the first part is true and are either lying or mistaken about the second part. So if there is a 20% tax cut across the board, then anyone making under $85K has a Zero marginal tax rate. Sweet! Yeah, that' really sucks for the poor, doesn't it?

You are making contradictory statements. The fact checkers have already debunked Obama's lie of the $5 trillion tax cut. That' is completely debunked and a proven lie. It's not my fault you refuse to see it.

But here is something, a quote spoken today by none other than Joe "Plugs" Biden-

Joe Biden wrote:My heart breaks, come on man. You know the phrase they always use? Obama and Biden want to raise taxes by a trillion dollars. Guess what? Yes we do in one regard. We want to let that trillion dollar tax cut expire so the middle class doesn’t have to bear the burden of all that money going to the super wealthy. That’s not a tax raise, that’s called fairness where I come from.

What's hilarious about this is that to achieve this trillion dollar tax raise is to let the so called Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year.

Hey, guess what happens then, bedub? The rates increase in every single one of those tax brackets.

That top tax bracket will go up from 35% to 39.9%. And so will every single one of the other rates increase. This will be the new tax rates-15% for $0-$26,25028% for $26,251- $63,50031% for $63,500- $132,60036% for $132,601- $288,35039.9% for $288,351

Man, can't you see? The supposed "getting the burden off the middle class" is BS. The middle class will be paying more in taxes, as will the rich.

But the sick thing, and Obama won't tell you this and is a fact people like you don't seem to understand. Rich people don't make income. Their money comes from capital gains, which is the same tax rate for everyone, depending on the type of capital investment. The working people pay the income taxes. Any talk about raising taxes on the rich is really raising taxes on people who freaking work. Everyone, which hurts the poor more than anyone else.Just look at the numbers for goodness sake. It's right there, you can look it up yourself.Compare current tax rates to that of 2000, which is where the tax rates will revert if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. You can plainly see that the rate increases on every income level.

Now if you want to raise the capital gains tax, to "punish the rich", then you aren't thinking that through either. A capital gains tax increase will hurt the middle class far more than the rich. You know, the people who are working, making 80K-120K (or even less more often), when they sell their house, sell stocks, put away money into retirement plans, certain retirement savings plans, interest on savings accounts, selling a business and a whole crapload of other types of capital gains, you will be killing the middle class who need those tax breaks the most.

You can't base the capital gains tax rates based on how rich someone is or isn't. The capital gains rates are determined by the type of investment itself, not on the person transacting the sale or profit. Do you want the working people to have to pay greater taxes on the interest they earned over a year from their savings account? I don't. Apparently, you do.

It doesn't matter, bedub, no matter what is the truth you will continue to drink the cool-aid of "your side". Until you finally realize that the cool-aid you're drinking is the same stuff that "the other guy" is supposedly trying to make you drink, you keep on living in La La land of "My Side is the Best Side".

You're getting screwed all the same either way. If you like that sort of thing, then by all means, keep thinking Obama is the honest politician and that it's only Romney that's the evil liar. Or that it's the Democrats who are noble and just and the Republicans who are wicked and deceitful.

The truth is, they are all the same. They feed you crap and trick you into asking for seconds. Enjoy your dinner!

Nobunaga wrote:... Obama gets his ass beat.... then suddenly we see the largest jump in employment since 1983? ....

... It would be suspicious even before looking at how they cooked the numbers. After that, yes, this kind of deceit should have consequences. But of course it won't.

...

This will only work on low information voters. That's why the left is relying so hard on things like "the 47%".

If anyone cares about the truth, real unemployed remained unchanged, from 14.7% in August, to 14.7% in September.

They (Obama, Bush, ALL of them) do the same thing with unemployment stats that the CPI and PPI do with inflation numbers. They say "inflation rose .3% last month, after you exclude food and energy, tuition and housing" So basicially, the number reflects inflation after you exclude everything that we all need more than anything else.

Same with unemployment, it does not count people who's unemployment benefits ran out and then went to disability. That person gets dropped from the unemployment stats, but not because they found a job. Same with students who are looking for work (not counted) senior citizens who are looking for word (not counted). It's the worst way to judge unemployment, but by all means, let the LIV's trumpet it.

Even if they ignore reality and still choose to believe that only 7.8% of people are unemployed, well, what the hell kind of victory is that? 7.8% is the same unemployment rate that the day Obama took office. Since they are going to put stock in what Obama is saying today, then they must put stock in what Obama said in 2009. Because at the time, he said "this was the worst economy since the Great Depression" when 7.8% was the numbers.

WELL CONGRATULATIONS! WE ARE AT EXACTLY THE SAME POINT AS WHEN WE WERE IN THE WORST ECONOMY SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! WOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

bedub1 wrote:Again we have this same topic. Should it be illegal for a politician to lie? What should the punishment be?

IE when rMoney states that his medical plan will cover pre-existing conditions during the debate, but it in fact will not cover them, should he be arrested?

When rMoney states that he won't lower taxes on the rich, but his plan clearly does this, should he be disqualified from the election?

If a government employee tells you something, and you make life decisions based upon that information, but the government employee is lying to you and does the exact opposite, do you have a path for recourse?

This reminds me of the old joke.

"Does you dog bite?""No"(Dog bites man)"That is not *my* dog."

That is the cute thing about politicians.Candidate X states he will not do YYou are convinced that Candidate's plan will do YAnd that means?Well, actually it means squat because the candidate has never promised he would do his plan, only that he would not do Y

If a candidate promises X and breaks that promise and you think that broken promise is imporant; don't vote for him in the next election.

bedub1 wrote:If a government employee tells you something, and you make life decisions based upon that information, but the government employee is lying to you and does the exact opposite, do you have a path for recourse?

How about when Obama lies, and says he will cut the deficit in half in 2008, but then it is doubled it in 2009, more than doubled in 2010, doubled in 2011, and more than doubled in 2012? The closest Obama got to cutting the deficit in half was more than doubling it, and 2 out of the 4 years of Obama's economy, he tripled it!

Forget disqualifying him for lying, or arresting him for lying, how about we refuse to re-elect him for lying?